I do quickly realize it was backwards, but it reads very weirdly to me. If it's a list of misconceptions, shouldn't the misconceptions be the things in the list, with the corrections following each one as explanatory text?
"This list of common or popular misconceptions contains some fallacious, misleading, or otherwise flawed ideas"
Try to read more carefully.
Funny how in an article about common misconceptions a myth like that gets to live on (by being replaced with a new one).. I can't speak for Berlinerisch, as I've never lived in Berlin myself, but in standard German both versions - with and without the indefinite article - are 100% correct.
The version suggested in the article might be slightly more common ("Ich bin Berliner"), but for JFK's speech I'd even go as far and say his version was better, simply because it stresses that he's "ein Berliner", just like all the other people listening to his speech.
As I said, though, both versions are correct, and neither of them sounds better/worse.
(Sorry, no source, but I know a bit of German.)
I fully agree that "Ich bin ein Berliner" was the correct variant. The alternative phrase "Ich bin Berliner" wouldn't have fit well into the context of his speech.
(I have an alternate hypothesis: like all Germans I heard that sentence a few dozen times, saw it again and again repeated on TV. Maybe the sentence just made that usage correct by sheer force of its existence. I would say that’s unlikely, but it’s possible. What I’m sure about, though, is that everyone who listened to JFK knew what he wanted say.)
Presumably you'd need to be a true bilingual to tell if they feel the same, and even then, your thought processes aren't going to be the same as either type of monolingual.
Yes, that's a very good analogy.
If you say "Ich bin Berliner", it just means that you live in Berlin. I doesn't put any emphasis on identifying with a certain group of people. It merely says that you belong to this group, maybe just by accident.
However, if you say "Ich bin ein Berliner", especially in the context of his speech, it means that you identify yourself with the group, i.e. with the people of Berlin.
That's why I disagree with that point of the Wikipedia article. "Ich bin ein Berliner" was a perfect formulation. I guess Kennedy got the help of a native German speaker or had a very good translator.
Either that, or it was the usual cause for rumors: sciolism.
It could also have started as a dumb joke, which was then taken seriously by people who didn't know better.
>I've never lived in Berlin myself, but in standard German both versions - with and without the indefinite article - are 100% correct
I find this intriguing as my German language instructor (we focussed on grammar and technical language but also did conversational German) informed me that "Ich bin ein Berliner" was simply wrong and that it was a kindergarten style mistake - as I blushed and corrected myself "Ich bin Patent-prüfer".
Some things I believe, some things you believe.
No matter how informed or educated or logical we believe ourselves to be.
It's something to keep in mind.
There should be a law against downvoting without giving a reason :)
I learned something today! I had always thought that ALL metal in the microwave was verboten. Fascinating that it's the shape of the metal, not its material, that matters.
I guess the metal will absorb the microwave energy and heat up and then the food will get seared by contact with the metal, instead of directly receiving the microwave radiation.
My parents have one of those microwaves and when I saw it I was just as perplexed about it.
Here in Minnesota, USA, warm cereals (primarily oatmeal, Malt-o-meal and Cream of Wheat) are very popular in the colder months (September through April or May, most years).
They also rock when you're sick, especially with a sore throat (as I am today).
However, I almost always cook mine on the stove top, not in the microwave.
I worked for the University of Maryland's Dairy Barn on the College Park campus for a couple of years in the early 1980s, and I discovered you do not want to try rounding up cows in the pasture wearing a rain poncho. It terrifies them so much they run all over the place rather than going into the barn like they were supposed to. The color was immaterial - tan and brown were as bad as yellow.
* The largest freshwater lake (by surface area) is not lake Superior, but lake Michigan-Huron.
* North America contains more than three countries (I'm lookin' at you, Jon Stewart!), including St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
It's actually neither if they are compared by volume and not the surface area, in which case the largest lake is Baikal.
Honestly I would not call this one a misconception. In fact I'm pretty close revising that section or just removing it altogether.
The "textbook definition" is simple only in that it is abstract. It's not rigid at all, in fact it's extremely flexible. If what you are doing can't ultimately be described by the scientific method then what you are doing is not science and you probably shouldn't pretend that it is. Paleontology, and astronomy, for example, still involve observation and hypothesis, even though many predictions cannot be tested with existing technology. Just because discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered accidentally doesn't mean it's not an empirical observation.
Yes, reality has more details. But in my experience, so many people fail to understand even the simple scientific method that worrying about the realities of how actual professionals practice science is rather silly.
Among other things, this leads people to misunderstand the iterative nature of science, the nature of an on-going scientific investigation, the particular creative difficulties that come with doing science, and so on.
It is not taught as something abstract. To do that, you'd have to provide a series of disparate examples from different sciences and show how they all involved observation and hypothesis in a way that made sense of the method as defined.
Here's an alternative presentation by people who are concerned about this sort of thing:
Seriously, is it worth piling on concepts like peer review and publication to education of the scientific method? Peer review and publication are specific contemporary terms used by professional scientists. If you're a regular person and want to learn something, for example, how a particular feature of a programming library works, or how much load your servers can handle, or how spellcasting works in your favorite MMO, it's far more useful to understand the so-called 'rigid' scientific method than it is to understand peer review and scientific journals. It's not a "misconception."
People in general rarely understand how science really works. It's glaring in journalism where often an article takes some non-reviewed research and cites it like it's an established truth, or in vague quotes like "some scientists believe X", where the scientist is actually in a domain not at all related to X. I also see a lot of people who cannot grasp how a given source may be more reliable than another one, even if both are written by "scientists". Things like the "evolution is just a theory" would also be less prevalent if people understood how science works.
Comments like "evolution is just a theory" would be less prevalent no matter which definition of science was applied: the simple, elegant textbook definition or the complicated, several-page Berkeley definition. The problem is not that one is applied over the other, the problem is that neither is applied..
On topic: Wikipedia's lists are usually fun. WP has become my search engine of choice for things apart from error messages, or when I think I know what I'm looking for (or close).